Fewer ducks...fewer hunters

[Hambone]

For those of you who are seeming to pine for the "good old days" of the mid-1980's, when the hunter numbers were fewer, just remember that the duck numbers were much, much lower, too. I have kept a detailed journal of every one of the hundreds of duck hunts that I have made over the last three decades. After reading some of the recent posts, I reread my accounts of the years of the three duck limits and virtually deserted hunting areas. What jumped out at me was the decline that we slowly slid into from about 1982 through 1991. It was distressing to read of my growing concerns as year after year of drought brought the duck numbers into deeper peril, and hunt after hunt where we saw little and came home with one or no ducks. I remember vividly the year that the limit went back up to four, and all of us who have been around for awhile know what has happened since. To me, the sport is more fun when there are more birds, although a high bag limit is not a great priority on my list of desires. I hate roboducks and cherish an uncrowded day in the swamp more than most. On the other hand, the reason for the proliferation of new hunters, gadgets and a "mini-economy" based on duck hunting is the fact that duck populations rose in the 1990's and so did the stock market. With more ducks and more money, it's no surprise that we saw more hunters. I, for one, like to see high duck numbers, even if it means competition from other hunters. If you crave solitude, get your wallet out and invest in a private place to hunt. Those who set the seasons are going to do it (hopefully) based upon sound biological reasons and not to weed out newcomers to the sport. I, for one, do not resent the fact that there are people who have only recently come to love duck hunting. Rather than set forth an exclusionary attitude, let's show the "amateurs" a better way to hunt...bringing together the magical combination of calling, camouflage, placement and knowledge of the birds is much more satisfying than setting up a shooting gallery over an electric decoy and potting the first six duck-shaped objects that flutter in! We are due for a dreaded drought cycle and there is not one thing we can do about it, but I certainly hope for wet weather in Canada this and every year. I cannot comprehend the thought that some people seem to hope that duck numbers will plummet so that fewer hunters will be out there in the fall. I liked having our duck holes to myself fifteen years ago, but I like sharing the same areas with a few more hunters and thousands more ducks even better!

[RobertM]

I agree with what you just said, and I want to make a point. In my opinion, the more hunters there are, the better off we all are. Our priveledges of of gun ownership and hunting is threatened. The threat applies regardless of what we like to hunt and the methods we do it. There are nuts who are against hunting in all forms, and can easily turn a non hunter to their side. The more of us there are, the better off we are and have a better chance of a future we approve of for ourselves and our children. I have only duck hunted for a few years, I am what most on this board would consider a newbie I'm sure. I dont use a robo, but I dont care who does. That is no more my business than an anti trying to take away my right to hunt. If the anti's weren't concerned with other folk's practices we would all be better off. I stay within the law myself and hunt as I believe ethical. Bottom line here, like the guy just said above, teach new hunters a good way to do it, but dont bash anyone for their practices. We are all able to be hunters thank the Lord, and hopefully we will continue to be hunters in the future. whew, just my 2 cents worth....

[Steven L. Presley]

Instead of making an idiot of myself and trying to post something else, I will just say to Hyena and Hambone......
"Well Said"

[MSDuckmen]

I still stand by my views on lower limits, Although what you said has merit you must not hunt where I do and showing these people anything is a waist of time. They will never lower the limit to get rid of new hunters I really don't know where you came up with that and the years between 1979 and 1997 were the best our club had.
Give me three bird and I'll dance. Give me 6 and I'll continue to deal with the slob hunters.
It is what your memories tell you that were the good old days and smaller limits were just that for me. Never will be about the amount of birds I kill but much more of the quality of the hunt.
I do my share with the youth. I don't feel a need to take on strangers that come too close, skybust or a number of other things that the new be's do. That is my time of year and I don't work all off season to pamper grown men that are greedy.

IMHO

[SoftCall]

Amen Hambone! Well stated. My thoughts EXACTLY!

[ScottS]

It reads to me like all those Northern boys are the ones slaughtering all the ducks with the twirlies in use. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Very interesting reading is putting it mildly and thanks for the post!!

[Hambone]

Duckmen, you are missing my point. Of course they do not shorten the season or lower the bag limit to reduce hunter numbers. What happens is that when duck populations drop, the season is shortened and bag limits are lowered. The less-serious waterfowlers do seem to disappear when that occurs. It seems to me that if you are hoping that we are forced back to the 30 day season/ 3 bird limit, then you are, in essence, wishing that duck populations plummet. Like I said before, we really can't do anything about it one way or the other, but I think it's silly to want fewer ducks to come down the flyway so that one can have the hunting grounds to himself.

[crow]

I don't recall, though I may have missed it, anyone saying they yearn for lower duck numbers. What I have said, and reiterate now, is that I wish for lower limits so as to discourage the psuedo-hunter who is in it just for the collection a "limit." My premise has been that when the fun of the hunt can no longer be measured in shooting a ton of shells and needing a front-end loader to carry out the ducks, a fair number of these boys will become deer hunters (only) again because that is what they can kill the most of and hang on the wall to please their egos and impress their friends. And, to answer your question...No, I don't think it wrong to have trophies in the house. But, I think it is wrong if that is all of the point. I still like the points system because it makes the idea of shooting secondary to identification of species and sex, and I think that enriches the sport. The expanded limits affects us all. Two seasons ago, I was hunting along a tree line in a field and a group of gadwall and mallards had been cirling and a couple of ducks dipped in and flew over from behind. I threw up and shot, killing one. A danged shoveler! Now, nothing against shovelers, but it's been a long time since I shot one on purpose! If the points system had been in place, you can bet I would have been a lot more careful than to just throw up and shoot. (The three of you who were hunting with me that day...don't say a word cause you rode me all day about that already!) I'm all in it for the resource too. You know, we old folks just want to think about the glory days when we were young guns.

Glory days, they'll pass you by
Glory days, in the wink of young girls eye.
Glory day!

[MSDuckmen]

Hambone

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

Duckmen, you are missing my point

I really don't think I did, but it would not be the first time.

I believe 3 is enough, doesn't matter is were are covered up with birds 3 is enough per day per hunter.

These are big birds and if your not getting enough shooting with three birds a day I feel you need to mix bag and do some dove, quail, goose or snipe to get your limit of shooting.

If they would lower the limit it would solve a lot of issues. Why not keep the limit to three for several years and let the birds grow in numbers. It would help even if the breeding grounds are dry many would next in the lower states.

It never has been about numbers and me wanting less numbers for less hunters. Just want less of a limit.

On public land just think about the issues it would resolve. One you would in fact have less hunters, Two hunters would limit and leave sooner helping other hunters and also reducing the presure on the birds. You would have more birds for next years breedings.
That is just touching the surface of things it would resolve.

This is only my opinion and stands for little, however I do feel strongly about it.

Betterdays

[Hambone]

I agree on the lower limits, but I definitely do not want to see the season shorter. Like most, I have to spend a certain number of days in the office, even during the season, and a shorter season translates into fewer days doing what I love. I make no bones about it, if the limit is six and the birds are working, I will shoot my limit when I have the chance. That is the case with most people, if they will be honest about it. By the same token, if the limit drops back to two mallards and one other duck, I will happily stick to it and my enjoyment of the day will not diminish one bit. I will say that if the three duck limit comes back, things will certainly go easier on me, because the quickest way to empty the porch at my camp is to announce that it's time to clean a half-dozen six-duck limits!